About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
CSPAN 41
LANGUAGE
English 41
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)
were to run $600 billion deficit for the next 10 years, by the end of that, the debt -- it would lower our gdp forecasts. if we were to cut with the fiscal consolidations that $600 billion deficit to $300 billion, we would be buying future generations gdp growth in the long run. by about half a% per year. it is ultimately a question of what kind of world we want to live in 10 years from now. if you want to look like the way europe has been growing, we will have a small consolidation, such as the small consolidation proposed by the president. if you want to have the kind of growth that i hope we can have with a bigger consolidation, that one is being proposed by speaker boehner. >> thank you. >> i would like to focus on something that is probably more of interest to the economists and ordinary people. let's talk about ratios. what i heard you lay out, dr. zandi, was more of an ideal situation. they get you at roughly at $3 trillion. deficit-reduction over the course of 10 years. you went on to add the $1.20 trillion over last year's negotiations on the debt ceiling. the negotiations ove
deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week. can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of count offer and we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit? >> the phone call was pleasant but was more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday were more of the same. it's time for the president if he's serious to come back to was a count offer. >> the jobs record indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. [inaudible] [inaudible] why take such a risk when the job numbers are improving. >> because increasing tax rates will hit many small businesses that produce 60 to 70%
for washington to face, they do talk about the deficit and the debt in getting the fiscal house in order. that is not the full extent of the list. but behind different as we talk about priorities along partisan and racial lines. let's start with where we are and with the public has been pounded with this message week after we, on the question of resolving the immediate fiscal cliff. how would you describe your temperature, your feeling that there will be some kind of accommodation and a deal even on the tax and spending and sequester side or both? >> good morning. glad to be with you and give you my perspective on where we are. to the beginning of your question, i often say one i am giving remarks that -- people in the same group, no matter how ponce and they are, people -- no matter how partis and they are, people will say two things. i want you to go to washington and stand on your principal. i want you to fight for us. i say, i will. someone else will get up and say, i want you to compromise and find the middle ground and get things done. this is the 10th time this just happen to me.
republican members of the house and the senate speak out on the need or a deficit approach that includes raising taxes on wealthy individuals and to moving right away to ensure that 98% of families do not race a tax increase. we need to look -- do not face a tax increase. we need to look at history. what we saw in the 1990s and 2000s, there was no relationship between lower marginal tax rates for the wealthiest among us an economic growth. first during the clinton administration, the top marginal tax rate was raised on the wealthiest individuals and the economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. it added more than 22 million jobs. during the following eight years, the top marginal rate dax tax rate was lower, but economy never regained its strength from the reviews decade. middle-class families are vulnerable when the recession began at the end of 2007. i hope this hearing is helpful not just in this hearing, but across this country to people who are watching and waiting for congress to act. i will say more at the end about some of our members who are leaving. it is -- it has been
money, and then on everybody else. not so he can lower the debt or the deficit, but so he can spend to his heart's content. for months, the president has been saying that all he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday, he finally revealed that that is not really is true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he is really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this is not about getting a handle on deficits or debt or him. it is about spending even more than he already has. why else would you demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we consider giving a president who has brought us four years of trillion dollar unchecked deficits of 30 to borrow? he is the last person who should have borrowing power. the only way we will cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. now the president wants to remove that to cut all together. of cou
the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede
, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we
to make sure that the wealthiest in this country help pay down this large deficit. >> will the democrats just wait? >> we have a lot of discussions going on in the senate and the various places. we know what the parameters are and the speaker knows what the parameters are. the president is ready, willing, and able to sit down and seriously negotiate with us but they have to be willing to come to the table with specifics like he is doing. >> we have done something. if you look at either proposal, they want every tax rate to go up. we all agree that group of rates should not go up. we just disagree on the top 2%. let's go where we agree which would be the current rates and make sure the folks in the middle class don't have an increase. we all agree on that. but they want more and more. we are saying that you have to start somewhere. they don't want to use the procedure to allow their own people to vote on it. they are holding the american people, the middle-class hostage for small issues they want to fight on and play the press war. we agree on these rates to be lower. we just disagree on
this morning. you made a comment that you did not believe anybody was interested in solving this deficit problem. that about knocked me out of my chair. i need you to explain to me and the rest of the people watching why you said that anthony g. to -- and i need you to expound on that. i will take my answer off the air. please ask mr. reid to not to be such an obstructionist and sit down and listen. have a great day. guest: imitate a few days for that message out to get through from me. there's a lot of concern about budget deficits. in the period after the downturn, budget deficits for in a range of 10% of the entire gdp, the entire economic output of the u.s. they have come down a little bit. economists think to be sustainable, budget deficits have to be in the range of 3% of economic output or a lower. the focus of this effort to reduce deficits now is on getting them, in the federal budget deficit to the range of 3% or so. that is what i mean when i say policymakers are not trying to get rid of the budget deficits. given the economic weakness, a little bit of deficit spending is pro
the incentives. we do so much money that you can reduce the deficit significantly, lower the rate, still have the group you are asking to pay more, pay more if you're willing to broaden the base. the point i would make is that as difficult as it is, we should use this opportunity to think about what a most sensible tax system is, and one of the pieces we have made progress on, which will have real revenues as a budget deal, and that along with spending and economists is critically important. no matter how we raise or how much we raise the revenues, a small or big enough, we should strive to raise that in the most efficient way possible, and that is including tax reform as part of this overall deal is a critical part of growth. and shouldn't be lost in the mix. >> david, do you want to get in? >> i want to echo a number of the comments, because the way i describe it is if we had actually been trying to develop an incomprehensible, confusing, and globally uncompetitive system which could not have done -- system we could not have done a better job than what we got. there is a something to the pr
to hearing today from the experts that we have before us today on how to reduce the deficit while protecting middle income families. as we enter the holiday season, americans should not have to face the uncertainty that many will face with regard to their taxes. there is no reason that middle income families should go into this holiday season without knowing whether their taxes will go up next year. last year, democrats and republicans work together to cut nearly $1 trillion of spending. now we need to continue that bi-partisan work to cut more spending, and to bring in additional revenues. if congress fails to reach an agreement under the budget control act of 2011, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will take place between 2013 and 2021. republicans and democrats agree that indiscriminate across-the- board cuts is not the right and to do at this time in our nation's history. if we trigger the automatic spending cuts and tax increases, gross margin bottom will fall by half a percentage point. we will reverse the hard-fought gains over the past few years. we cannot afford to go backwar
there will be a benefit, which means we do not have these deficits. in the fullness of time, whether a struggle last summer was worth it, if we have the spending cuts and deficits are lower, it might have higher economic growth in the long run because we went to that struggle last year. >> your position is that we should be ready to go through that struggle again and to call upon the national debt is necessary in order to enforce spending limits? >> that, of course, is not my position. we should never default on the national debt. the politics of debt reduction, which you on the better than me, are very difficult. i am not a political expert. if there is something we need to do that helps deficit reduction occur, i am not willing to stop process. >> you are saying defaulting of the national debt might be something we need to do now and then? >> no, sir. we do not default last summer. >> we did not. but we might in january of february. is it your position that we should be willing to default on the debt if that is necessary in order to force spending cuts? >> i would not be willing to default on the
with the president and other ceo's to discuss the impending crisis. we even published their own study on the deficit, copies of which are available here today. we look forward to continuing this conversation, keeping the dialogue on going for the next month is critical if we're going to solve this problem -- and we think our panel will be very enlightening in terms of what the issues are. so, al, with that i will turn it over to you and the panel. we look forward to reproductive hour. thank you very much. >> can everybody hear? i welcome you all to bgov -- if you do not know as much about it as you want, i invite you to stay, because it really is a fabulous place. we do have an all-star panel. i will start with my left, which is where bob corker says i always start. tim pawlenty, former governor of minnesota. i wrote that i thought that if he could get the nomination he would have been the strongest republican presidential candidate. i was absolutely right -- we just could not figure out how to get there from here. tim is now the head of the financial services round table, a job he took just about a
, we have seen record deficits and a record debt accumulate, and yet he keeps demanding that we raise taxes to pay for more spending. this will only hurt our economy. ernst and young has done an analysis of the president's proposal and said it will cost several hundreds thousands of jobs. there is a better way and the speaker has laid it out. it is an approach that calls for tax reform by reforming the tax code and passing responsible spending cuts in order to get our fiscal house in order. that's what america wants. this is our opportunity to do the big things. this is our moment to provide that leadership that america desperately wants and we stand here ready to take the action necessary. >> the american people are hurting right now and now is the moment where we need to step up to the plate and solve the problem. i don't know how any of us can look our kids and grandkids in the eye and explain to them that we aren't willing to pay for the things we are enjoying today but just going to send them the bill. that's why republicans have the proposal on the table that fixes the problem,
's to discuss the impending crisis. we even published their own study on the deficit, copies of which are available here today. we look forward to continuing this conversation, keeping the dialogue on going for the next month is critical if we're going to solve this problem -- and we think our panel will be very enlightening in terms of what the issues are. so, al, with that i will turn it over to you and the panel. we look forward to a productive hour. thank you very much. >> can everybody hear? i welcome you all to bgov -- if you do not know as much about it as you want, i invite you to stay, because it really is a fabulous place. we do have an all-star panel. i will start with my left, which is where bob corker says i always start. tim pawlenty, former governor of minnesota. i wrote that i thought that if he could get the nomination he would have been the strongest republican presidential candidate. i was absolutely right -- we just could not figure out how to get there from here. tim is now the head of the financial services round table, a job he took just about a month or two ago
repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of having the will to do it, the programs are out there. compromise can be made around the streamlining of regulations to make sure that we are putting people back to work. if chris christy and barack obama can get -- chris cristie and barack obama can get together on that, and i know what's transpired and how the impact of our infrastructure has taken place along the eastern seaboard, it's something we ought to be able to rally around immediately. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it
. it is also the excesses. look at the road we are on. a trillion dollar deficit every year. a debt crisis on the horizon. debt on this scale is destructive on so many ways. one of them is that it draws resources away from private charity. even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will, unless we do something very soon. when government finances collapsed, it is the most vulnerable who are the victims, which we are seeing in europe. many feel they have nowhere to turn. we must never let that happen here. and election has come and gone. the people have made their choice. policy-makers still have a duty to choose between ideas that work and those that do not. when one economic policy after another has failed our working families, it is no answer to expressed compassion for them or create government programs that offer promise but do not create reforms. we must come together to advance new strategies for the the people out of poverty. let's go with what works. looking around this room at the men and women who are carrying legacy, i know we are answering the call. this cause is right.
to create jobs, to reduce the deficit, and again have fairness. this is the heart of the 3459er -- matter that is holding us here. as the public watches what is this about? this is about the $250,000 line that the president said in the campaign that he would honor and that that legislation today brings to bear. i urge my colleagues out of 435 members of the house, we only need a couple dozen republicans to sign the discharge petition. each one of them holds the key to a $2,000 tax cut for the middle class. either sign the petition, urge the speaker to bring the bill to the floor, or explain to your constituents why you do not want them to have this $2,000 tax break if they are -- for 100% of the american people. please sign the discharge petition. let's get this done this week. we could bring this bill up under unanimous consent. the message would be clear to the american people. we heard you in the campaign. be fair. do something that works. work togetha >> today, the house democratic caucus chairman charge republicans to protect the middle class from a tax increase. they spoke to report
. not a driver of the deficit but, hey, cut that. one more specific. preserve the bush-era tax rates for income over $250,000. it's not a tax increase for everybody who earns over $250,000. it's only the income over $250,000 that would get additional taxes if the bush-era rates went away and the president's proposal was passed. but, no, they want to preserve -- totally preserve tax cuts for income over $250,000. they want to preserve the reduced capital gains rate and dividends rate which principally who ben pets, who else, millionaires and billionaires. now -- benefits, who else, millionaires and billionaires. they did have the jay wellington wimpy plan. you remember him? popeye. i will pay you for a hamburger today. unspecified tax loopholes. we will lower the tax rates for the people on the top. but they'll raise over $800 billion. the ability to deduct the interest on their home mortgage, do they want to take that away? probably. got to come from something pretty big. they don't want to touch the billionaire, millionaire job creator class. now, you know, that's a pretty interesting position
intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows what may happen from this point to that point. as far as her role as a democrat, i think by working along with
times." so far in fiscal year 2013, the government notching up a $172 billion deficit in november a lawn. jams is joining us from orlando, florida on the democrats' line. caller: i think the number one priority is the people, and i think he will do a good job. people should give him more credit and let him do what he is doing. it will take time. i think he has a lot on his hands to deal with now. host: if you get through, turn the volume down on the tv set. this is from "to the new york times." our question -- what should be the president's number one agenda. next up is christine from new york city on the independent line. caller: good morning. i believe the president will not be able to accomplish his agenda without doing something that i believe is supported by the majority of the american people, that is the critical need for campaign finance reform to restore us to democracy that the people are represented at intergovernment instead of special interests. if we got campaign finance reform enacted, i know john mccain wanted it and a lot of other people -- we could then move on to do wh
of payments deficit remains petroleum, and to increase our g.d.p. by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. so thank you very much and i think we can sit down now or -- yeah. >> thank you. give us a moment to take our seats. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, our panel discussion is about to begin, featuring senator lamar alexander, senator roy blunt, and our moderator, christine romans. >> can you hear me now? there we go. good morning, rn. -- all right. so i'm a lazy moderator. i've warned everyone. we want to get the ball rolling and talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country, and the future of transportation and america's national security with regards to energy. but i want to make sure that all of you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and then ask another question. i want this to be a discussion, and i'll steer it. everyone agree? do we all agree? wonderful. let me start first with fred. nice to see you again. >> good to see you. >> you've heard the findings of the report,
the gramm-rudman deficit law, which was so important at the time. those issues remain important today. he did not aspire to be a politician, and he did not have to like one. he cared deeply. [laughter] we know he cared deeply about our country and devoted himself because he had a calling to shape and preserve our country's future. he believed deeply in the rule of law and used the force of his intellect to defend it. one of the things that is most telling about warren rudman is the statement that represents what he was all about. he once said -- i consider myself an american first and a republican second. fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good, he had the courage of his convictions and stood for what he believed in. in bidding farewell to the senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the senate with talented colleagues. many are here today to speak about their experiences with him. he also expressed his hope for the future of the senate, saying it is a very special place with very special people. i hope in the coming years that the inst
if you'd done been the biggest tax loopholes. they don't come close to fulfilling the deficit. how significant are these deductions when we look at their role in the big picture of solving the fiscal clef? >> they can be important, the goal is not to get rid of the budget deficit. i don't think anybody has a realistic hope of getting rid of the budget deficit and a lot of people don't want to get rid of the budget deficit. certainly, opinions differ. they can be a managing part of the deficit. >> do they play a role in negotiations and talks? there is a group advocating for every one of these deductions that people are used to getting. could they end up on the chopping block? >> definitely. >> there is also a link to see more at our website for the gop proposal. we are going live to the house. a requirement that financial restitution set of privacy notices. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5817. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. caller: h.r. 5817, to provide an exception to the annu
the economy. most of the deficit we have today is a symptom of how the economy is and is providing a useful product by injecting demand into the economy, and that is why we are still constrained. host: joseph and is on the democratic line. caller: while this money is turned over to the states on behalf of the employ unemployedw much of that is kept by the state's tax hos? to the states to give that money back to the federal government if it is not paid out? once you open up a claim, just because you have got to clean open, you have $4,000 in your account -- massachusetts, you might have $15,000 in your account. that money, if you do not dried out, the state keeps it, i believe. -- draw it out, the state keeps it, i believe. guest: i am not sure how that would be handled. the difference between what is happening in the state fund, which is state-funded, and the federal reimbursement, i believe the federal reimbursement only goes to the states after they pick up the money. guest: that is my understanding as well. i did nothing states are able to keep money that is not disbursed to the unemplo
economy. we need to show the world we can get our economy under control, reduce the deficit, and begin to show leadership in various areas of new technology that demonstrated here to the rest of the world. kohl will always be there. there's lots of work there. all the sales will help, i think, of leverage our capability and give us more options. >> let me bring you in. 92% of american transportation is run on petroleum. with this new landscape for energy production of, how are we doing on diversifying different kinds of things that are running our transportation? >> so far, it is going slow. something that was deeply focused on was something note senator alexander said earlier. we need to find more and use less. i think you're asking about the use less part. the extension of the changing fuel efficiency standards was one thing, but we believe fervently in the need to diversify away from using petroleum for transportation and given that it represents 70% of our use of petroleum to begin with. with the change in technology and the access to so much homegrown natural gas, we can use that
, reduce the deficit, and begin to show leadership in various areas of new technology that demonstrated here to the rest of the world. kohl will always be there. -- coal is always going to be there. there's lots of work there. all the sales will help, i think, of leverage our capability and give us more options. >> let me bring you in. 92% of american transportation is run on petroleum. with this new landscape for energy production of, how are we doing on diversifying different kinds of things that are running our transportation? >> so far, it is going slow. something that was deeply focused on was something note senator alexander said earlier. we need to find more and use less. i think you're asking about the use less part. the extension of the changing fuel efficiency standards was one thing, but we believe fervently in the need to diversify away from using petroleum for transportation and given that it represents 70% of our use of petroleum to begin with. with the change in technology and the access to so much homegrown natural gas, we can use that and we can also use the development
could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for all our coverage of the fiscal cliff talks. we have a web
executives today in washington. he talked about negotiations with congressional republicans on deficit reduction and the so-called fiscal cliff. >> the holdup right now is that speaker boehner took a position -- i think the day after the campaign -- that said we're willing to bring in revenue, but we aren't willing to increase rates. and i just explained to you why we don't think that works. we're not trying to -- we're not insisting on rates just out of spite or any kind of partisan bickering. but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue. now we have seen some movement over the last several days among some republicans. i think there's a recognition that maybe they can accept some rate increases as long as it's combined with serious entitlement reform and additional spending cuts. and if we can get the leadership on the republican side to take that framework, to acknowledge that reality. then the numbers actually aren't that far apart. another way of putting this is, we can probably solve this in about a week. it's not that tough. but we need that breakthrough that s
dollar deficit every year. a debt crisis on the horizon. debt on this scale is destructive on so many ways. one of them is that it draws resources away from private charity. even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will, unless we do something very soon. when government finances collapsed, it is the most vulnerable who are the victims, which we are seeing in europe. many feel they have nowhere to turn. we must never let that happen here. and election has come and gone. the people have made their choice. policy-makers still have a duty to choose between ideas that work and those that do not. when one economic policy after another has failed our working families, it is no answer to expressed compassion for them or create government programs that offer promise but do not create reforms. we must come together to advance new strategies for the the people out of poverty. let's go with what works. looking around this room at the men and women who are carrying on jack kemp's legacy, i know we are answering the call. this cause is right. jack kemp started this. we know the good fight
extended. if the fiscal cliff debate is only limited to tax rates and deficit reduction, and not the debt ceiling, this will come up again. president obama once the debt ceiling to be part of this agreement. the reason why is simple, because that is where republicans have leverage in february. he needs republicans to extend the debt ceiling for the government to function with all going into default. republicans know this, and in theory they could separate the two to maximize their leverage. host: time for a couple more calls in this segment of the "washington journal," we will continue the unemployment insurance discussion in the following segment. laura is in louisville, kentucky, on the independent line. caller: good morning. what bothers me is when people say they actually can not find work and they have been on unemployment for 20 months, whatever they can get, and i will tell you my husband lost his job five years ago. he was with a company for 23 years. immediately we went into survival mode. we thought about what we could do to reduce bills, simplify our lifestyle in case he could
that spurs economic growth, creates jobs and reduces our deficit -- a plan that gives both sides some of what they want. i'm willing to find ways to bring down the cost of health care without hurting seniors and other americans who depend on it. and i'm willing to make more entitlement spending cuts on top of the $1 trillion dollars in cuts i signed into law last year. but if we're serious about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy -- and if we're serious about protecting middle-class families -- then we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one principle i won't compromise on. after all, this was a central question in the election. a clear majority of americans -- democrats, republicans and independents -- agreed with a balanced approach that asks something from everyone, but a little more from those who can most afford it. it's the only way to put our economy on a sustainable path without asking even more from the middle class. and it's the only kind of plan
. guest: this is a time when people in congress are talking more seriously about reducing the deficit, getting rid of fraud as the caller was talking about. than many times in the past. now, whether they can follow through on that goal is a question. but i would sort of advise the caller to keep paying attention and see whether maybe something that he would like comes out of this. host: you've been write being taxes for five years. you've been in washington now for five years, is that -- ok. so you've heard discussions about deficit reduction over the years and tax policy. guest: yeah. host: we always seem to focus on the out years. when it comes to a lot of these issues. do the out years ever come about or does policy get changed before any real cuts are made? guest: so that they are pushing -- they're delaying the pain is what you're saying and they'll come back and -- yeah. that has occurred, the very famous one is the doc fix. i'm sure you're familiar with. they back in the 1990's reduced payments to doctors through medicare and then decided that wasn't such a good idea after doct
did not say al qaeda, iran, north korea, what he said was the deficit and the state of american society. i think that is exactly right. you can look at questions of the budget, and for structure, an immigration policy but above all this education policy. this is the future. we're not talking about our physical infrastructure. we are talking about our human infrastructure. joel has dedicated his recent phase of his creer to -- career to this. when he is not discovering the best restaurants in brooklyn, he is focused on improving the lot of young people in this country. >> it is supposed to be the other way around. >> i will tell you how kind and dedicated he has been to this issue. i called condie up and said i want you to do something for me and with me. she said i'm too busy, did not start. i said ok. i said before the end of this conversation, you will agree to what i asked you. she said no way. i said we at the council on foreign relations was spend time working on things like china and mexico and traditional foreign- policy issues, we have moved our agenda and are focused on
our deficit situation as the economy grows. without raising any taxes. but the fact of the matter is i know the gentleman has historically not felt tax cuts should be paid for either by reducing it or offsetting. the president doesn't agree with the $800 billion because he doesn't think the math works. i share the president's view. the math doesn't work. the most useful effort will be if we all agree on the onive -- objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70% debt to g.d.p. ratio which most economists or a little less than that is sustainable or is on a sustainable path. if we all agree with the objective and then, mr. majority leader, simply make the math work to get there on a way that we could agree on, i think america would be advantaged, the economy would be advantaged and we'd see a renaissance of job creation in this country as we did in the 2000's. and i'll be glad to yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i accept the gentleman's good intentions. i know he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on the american people to pay more of their money int
a significant trade deficit. the value of their oil imports are greater than their exports to iran. this provision should lock up a substantial portion of iran's earnings from its oil sales in each of these countries. as for the financial executions will longer be able to transfer iran's oil earnings beyond their countries borders without fear of losing their access to the u.s. financial system, iran will be severely limited in its ability to transfer funds across jurisdictions. oil revenues will largely be shackled with a given country, and only usable to purchase goods from that country. as you might imagine, we have been hitting the road, making sure that our partners in the international financial community understand the significance of this provision. perhaps the greatest endorsement of our efforts has come from the iranian president himself. speaking in october, ahmadinejad said, "the enemy has announced it has introduced sanctions on the purchase of iran from iraq. even worse, it has imposed banking sanctions, meaning of some oil is sold, its revenues are not transferable t
security will focus on how the national security is impacted by the deficit. mike mullen will testify along with others. later, the center for strategic international studies host a forum on u.s. relations with china in light of china's leadership transition. that is at 5:30 eastern p.m.. ♪ >> this weekend on c-span 3, follow harry truman's grandson to hiroshima as the city celebrates -- remembers the dropping of the bomb. >> everybody has their own view. i do not want to argue about the history. i think we are past that. my goal and purpose for being here is to honor the dead and listen to the living. i want to do what i can add to make sure this does not happen again. >> we will discuss meetings with a bomb survivors and the inspiration for his trip. that is on c-span 3 on sunday at 9:00 eastern. >> are reported by the group -- ring america's future members of the group, a political and business leaders, are suggesting a plan of maximizing oil and gas production, reducing consumption, and improving conservation as a way to boost revenue and reduce our debt. this is about a less -- a lit
housing administration. it talks about a government report projecting a $16 billion deficit in the fha mutual mortgage and current fund. from the senate banking committee, this is an hour and half. >> i call this hearing to order. thank you for joining us, mr. secretary. i asked you to testify today because i'm deeply concerned about the recent report that the f.h.a. could potentially need taxpayer support for the first time in its 78-year history. i would like you to help the committee gain insight into the fiscal challenges at the f.h.a. and what h.u.d. has done and can do to mitigate losses and address the shortfall in the capital reserve ratio. f.h.a. has been helping save lives of the mortgage market by ensuring that qualified lower to moderate income and first time home buyers have access to credit since 1934. since the beginning of the financial crisis, the f.h.a. has increased its market share from below 5% in 2006 to about 30% at its peak volume in 2009, in pursuant of that mission. this cyclical expansion was essential to the mortgage market, especially for first time home bu
with republicans on a plan that spurs economic growth, creates jobs and reduces our deficit -- a plan that gives both sides some of what they want. i'm willing to find ways to bring down the cost of health care without hurting seniors and other americans who depend on it. and i'm willing to make more entitlement spending cuts on top of the $1 trillion dollars in cuts i signed into law last year. but if we're serious about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy -- and if we're serious about protecting middle-class families -- then we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one principle i won't compromise on. after all, this was a central question in the election. a clear majority of americans -- democrats, republicans and independents -- agreed with a balanced approach that asks something from everyone, but a little more from those who can most afford it. it's the only way to put our economy on a sustainable path without asking even more from the middle class. and it'
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)